The proportion of pupils studying design and technology (D&T) fell by 50% from 2009 to 2020. Over the same period, the number of secondary teachers of the subject halved, exacerbated by under-recruitment. Now, one of the world’s most powerful global education businesses believes it has the solution to the subject’s freefall decline through curriculum reform.
Claiming to “drive forward a new, future-focused design and technology”, Pearson Education have announced plans to launch a new qualification, GCSE Design and Sustainability. The idea has the support of many design organisations and the creative industries community, which has helped to raise the predicament of D&T to a national level.
But this raises an important question: Who should design a school curriculum? Private companies, charities and commercial stakeholders have pledged their support and ambition for Pearson’s proposal, but each has a motive that may not be in the best interest of pupils’ general education. For example, both Google and Microsoft have separate interests in expanding into education to sell their products and to capitalise on the expansion of digital learning.
A flawed proposal
Viewed this way, Pearson’s foray into D&T reform looks less like a philanthropic gesture and more like a hostile takeover – one that cynically uses sustainability as an emotive justification for its work. After all, few parents or pupils would disagree with its importance, but equally few may realise that it is already part of the subject’s GCSE content across all four assessment organisations.
Pearson claims this new curriculum will educate the “problem solvers of the future”, focussing on circular economy, design thinking, systems thinking, collaboration, creativity and innovation. On the surface, the qualification appears to be supported by a wide range of sector bodies, including the Royal Academy of Engineers, Design Council and Royal Society of Arts. A peculiarity is the support of the subject association for art and design, NSEAD, but not the D&T Association – the national lead for design and technology.
That may be because the proposal implies that there will be a reduction in making, meaning that resources (money) will be saved and teachers will no longer need to have specialist subject skills, which will supposedly address the ‘shrinking teacher workforce’. The potential to deskill the expert D&T teacher is evident, and current D&T curriculum thinking already accommodates alternative approaches to the design and make paradigm
Pearson say that around half of the 2200+ secondary school D&T teachers they consulted say they want change. But is the equivalent of a Twitter straw poll? There are 33 000 members of the D&T Association representing primary, secondary, private and state education. Is Pearson’s sample representative? And when do they plan to talk to primary teachers? Half of a selective sample isn’t exactly a landslide for change.
The case for reform
There is clearly an issue with D&T; the decline in GCSE numbers show this, and the reaction on social media from secondary school D&T teachers shows there is a need for discussion around our curriculum. Pearson have given a focus to this conversation, but their motives are not the same as teachers’. The company currently has only a small market share of the GCSE D&T numbers, and reform to increase its market share won’t necessarily align with what the experts want.
Indeed, this could end up being a distraction from the very real problems facing D&T. The nature of curriculum content is only a small part of the problem, which has more to do with the perceived value of its curriculum and the inadvertent impact of education policy reforms, including school accountability measures.
D&T is on a concerning downward trajectory. Reversing it should be central to the government’s strategy to upskill the workforce, tackle skills shortages and meet its sustainability goals. But curriculum change in general education should be informed by rigorous and valid research, not a private company that is answerable to shareholders.
D&T teachers have been subject to numerous curriculum changes – maybe it’s time to let them take the lead on the future direction of their subject instead of those who are not in the classroom.
This article was co-authored with Matt McLain, Liverpool John Moores University, and Sarah Davies, Nottingham Trent University
I worked on Design Technology with Extend Education for IB Design Technology. I am from UK. Get in touch if need help. For the IB,I am a writer,author and examiner. UK design needs an over haul.
Can I help here? Are you open to different opinions?!
I am from UK, masters,trained DT at Loughborough, also Brunel, Oxford.
I have been a HOD several times.
I have taught taught UK,NZ and IB Curriculums. I am worshop leader, examiner and author for IB.
The UK needs to revamp it’s Design Technology course,as is getting left behind,overtaken.
I am an AHT D&T Lead across 10 schools in a trust and have recently met with Pearson to find out the facts to alleviate my concerns. I can reassure people that the process has involved a lot of collaboration with D&T teachers from the start and the proposal has also been written by people with a teaching background.
As a D&T HoD of over a decade I have seen, first hand, the decline of D&T and I have personally worked hard to try to reinvigorate, it without much impact.
In my 20 years of D&T teaching this is the first proposal I have seen that has a clear vision and direction. Previous attempts at reform were – in my opinion – backward looking and dicated by D&T’s peculiar historical legacy which probably explains why were are were we are; at a cliffedge.
Once again I am afraid that I am seeing a fragmented and negative response to a proposal – with stakeholders fearful of what they will lose, rather than what can be gained.
The reality is that if nothing happens, and we continue the same endless conversations, the subject will exploded.
I agree that it would be better if this was being driven from the teaching body or subject association, but as it seems they don’t have a coherent – and yes commercially viable – proposal then I for one am glad that someone is doing something.
I was at the recent teacher consultation meeting and the response was overwhelmingly positive – many seeing this proposal as an evolution that is fit for the the future, rather than a cynical attempt to cash-in.
Well put Alison, Matt and Sarah. I agree that Pearson’s claimed results are flawed, from an unrepresentative sample. One of the biggest issues facing D&T is now the perceived ‘single’ route, and associated overinflated course content which needs to be learned for section 1, multiple choice questions. One size does not fit all learners in schools. We need to think about how to keep D&T, but get it recognised on the same level as Physics (compare the grade boundaries!) and also revamp vocational courses (may happen through T levels).
I recently attended a Pearson workshop on their new curriculum proposal where a number of current D&T teachers were given the opportunity to give their thoughts and concerns on the proposal.
The underlying feeling of the day was one of positivity and a realistic proposal for the future for the subject was presented. One cannot hide from the facts and figures surrounding the decline of the subject and any effort to “save” D&T should be commended.
Current D&T teachers are being given the opportunity to contribute and feedback on the curriculum reform. Anything with the potential to drive the subject forward is a positive thing in my eyes.